Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 302 (JHR)

Uzra Khatoon v. State of Jharkhand

2013-03-01

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
CAV ORDER Shree Chandrashekhar, J. The petitioner, claiming herself to be the first legally married wife of deceased Ali Akbar, has sought a direction for payment of half share in the retiral benefits of her late husband and half share in the family pension with arrears of family pension since 12.11.1996. 2. The husband of the petitioner who was a Primary Teacher in a school died on 19.11.1996. From the wedlock the petitioner was blessed with a daughter and a son. The husband of the petitioner contracted second marriage with one Sanju Ara with whom he had three sons and four daughters. It appears that petitioner submitted an application on 28.07.1998 before the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh for granting her share in retiral benefits of her husband and for compassionate appointment. However, inspite of repeated representations, the claim of the petitioner was not settled by the respondents and, therefore she had to approach this Court. The second wife of Late Ali Akbar has been arrayed as Respondent No. 8. 3. The respondents have appeared and filed their counter-affidavit. Respondent No. 8 has filed a separate counter-affidavit. It has been stated by the Respondent No. 8 that Late Ali Akbar had divorced the petitioner in the year 1972 itself and after divorce, he had married to Respondent No. 8. During his lifetime Late Ali Akbar nominated his second wife (Respondent No. 8) as recipient of General Provident Fund. It has been further stated that after the divorce, the petitioner along with her children were living separately. The relevant extract from the voter list has been brought on record in which name of the petitioner appeared at Sl. No. 493 and in the column of husband/father, name of Late Ali Akbar was not appearing rather the name of her father Israrul Haq was appearing. 4. Rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner controverting the statements made by the Respondent No. 8. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not validly divorced and therefore, his second marriage with Sanju Ara (Respondent No. 8) was not valid. He further submitted that during her lifetime the petitioner is entitled for a share in the pension and other retiral benefits of her husband. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was not validly divorced and therefore, his second marriage with Sanju Ara (Respondent No. 8) was not valid. He further submitted that during her lifetime the petitioner is entitled for a share in the pension and other retiral benefits of her husband. The nomination of the second wife-Sanju Ara by Late Ali Akbar was only for the purpose of General Provident Fund and on that basis the pension of the husband of the petitioner would not have been fixed in favour of the second wife of Late Ali Akbar. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondent No. 8 reiterated the stand taken in the counteraffidavit. The nomination of Respondent No. 8 by Late Ali Akbar has not been disputed by the petitioner. In fact, by order dated 20.08.2003, the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribagh, was directed to produce the service records and all other papers relating to the deceased husband of the petitioner and when the matter was heard, the records were perused by the learned counsel for the petitioner also. I find that Late Ali Akbar had nominated Smt. Sanju Ara as nominee for G.P.F. way back in 1992 itself. The petitioner has not brought on record any evidence to indicate that she was being supported by her late husband even after the divorce. In face of the Form of Nomination under Rule (2)(i)(c) of the Bihar General Provident Fund Rule, I am unable to accept the contention of the petitioner. The dispute regarding divorce and legal heirs of Late Ali Akbar cannot be decided in the present proceeding. 8. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to seek a declaration from a competent court in so far as her claim with respect to her children being legal heirs of Late Ali Akbar is concerned.